Support NeoGAF

[Dangansona]

so what is your point about media covering Trump more than Sanders?
Dems race was given way less coverage this year anyway

As I said above, it's just free publicity. The news networks gambled twice and I think they will lose both times. The first is dedicating all of their time to Trump's Wacky Antics(!) expecting this would all pass while they raked in the rankings, and he will win the republican nomination. They favored Clinton throughout the whole election never giving Sanders enough air time, and I think she will lose after she gets the nomination.

 

[Dangansona]

Biden did not step aside because of Bernie, let's be fucking real here.

Oh thanks for reminding me another transgression by the DNC, propping up Hillary and asking everyone else to step aside.

You don't think it's a problem that her only competition (RIP Malley) is from a senior socialist Jew from Vermont?

 

[hawk2025]

Bernie Sanders is a socialist, with no ties to the party, who was an unknown quantity for the Nation an year ago, outraising and pushing a candidate everyone was so afraid for that a popular VP stepped aside, that the whole DNC had decided well ahead of time there was no need for debates, that the majority of super-delegates pledged to her before any votes were cast.
The amount of time media has spend on this story is pathetic really.



And there are still people who are hearing his speech and message for the first time this month.

What's your theory here, I'm actually curious; The media cabal got together and decided "We should totally push Trump and hide Sanders, this is a great idea"?

 

[thezerofire]

Oh thanks for reminding me another transgression by the DNC, propping up Hillary and asking everyone else to step aside.

You don't think it's a problem that her only competition (RIP Malley) is from a senior socialist Jew from Vermont?

the DNC didn't ask anyone to step aside. No one wants to run against Hillary because she's by far the strongest candidate

 

[AntraxSuicide]

More coverage does not have to equal favoring, but it is clear that the mantra "There is no such thing as bad publicity" largely holds up considering his success.

This isn't accurate at all. It just so happens that a large chunk of the GOP base doesn't like the media, and so they don't care about his negative headlines. It's pretty clear from almost every election ever that a lot of candidates that aren't in that particular situation melt under public scrutiny. Just this year, take a look at Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, etc... All of them had their 15 minutes of "Will this person beat Trump?" and they all couldn't handle the increased media scrutiny.

Quite frankly, if this is the kind of interview Bernie would've given under more media scrutiny months ago, he'd be doing worse today than he is already. This interview is honestly a disaster for him. It just doesn't matter all that much now since he's got to overperform almost every poll available by double digits to win out. He's as relevant now as Jill Stein is.

 

[T'Zariah]

Ah, yes, the media totally failed to vet Trump and propped him up:

Oh, wait.

 

[Dangansona]

He's as relevant now as Jill Stein is.

Lol alright.

Ah, yes, the media totally failed to vet Trump and propped him up:

Oh, wait.

Ah yes, half of those being from one publication and other household names like the Daily Intelligencer. But no one said they are propping him up. They are just putting him on blast 24/7.

 

[NotBacon]

Bernie hate-train is leaving soon. All aboard!

Why should he know the exact legal implications of one of his ideas? He is not a lawyer.

And more importantly, he's still right. The fact none of those criminals went to jail, and the fact that the 6 largest companies are equal to more than half of the GDP of the U.S., is a testament to how much of a joke our economy is. How the banks deal with getting broken up is their own problem.

 

[ShironRedshift]

He said he hadn't studied the legal implications of the MetLife case. Seems taken out of context to me.

And? I mean, I agree that the thread title isn't the best and should probably be changed (especially so people can stop using it as an excuse to avoid the content of the interview itself on a more critical level and coming in here just for more one-liners like this, but that's something that should be being done in PMs with them instead of in the thread itself like this anyway), but what of the rest of the interview? That's hardly the worst part. Using the thread title to dismiss the entire content of the interview out of hand and why people are concerned by Sanders' answers and why they find them lacking is even more dishonest and disingenuous.

 

[Armaros]

Oh thanks for reminding me another transgression by the DNC, propping up Hillary and asking everyone else to step aside.

You don't think it's a problem that her only competition (RIP Malley) is from a senior socialist Jew from Vermont?

His son died from brain cancer.

Have some class and stop your conspiracy bullshit.

 

[noshten]

What's your theory here, I'm actually curious; The media cabal got together and decided "We should totally push Trump and hide Sanders, this is a great idea"?

How many speeches did they air of Trump waiting for him to make "news" by saying something stupid?

Biden did not step aside because of Bernie, let's be fucking real here.

I was talking about Hillary ...

 

[B-Dubs]

Oh thanks for reminding me another transgression by the DNC, propping up Hillary and asking everyone else to step aside.

You don't think it's a problem that her only competition (RIP Malley) is from a senior socialist Jew from Vermont?

Biden's son died, what the hell is wrong with you? Unless the DNC gave his son brain cancer and made sure he died at the right time...holy fuck dude...

 

[nitekrawlwer]

Bernie hate-train is leaving soon. All aboard!

Why should he know the exact legal implications of one of his ideas? He is not a lawyer.

And more importantly, he's still right. The fact none of those criminals went to jail, and the fact that the 6 largest companies are equal to more than half of the GDP of the U.S., is a testament to how much of a joke our economy is. How the banks deal with getting broken up is their own problem.

Criminals. I bet you can't tell me the crimes these criminals committed.

 

[hawk2025]

How many speeches did they air of Trump waiting for him to make "news" by saying something stupid?

Answer the question.

 

[Dangansona]

His son died from brain cancer.

Have some class and stop your conspiracy bullshit.

I said RIP Malley because he was the only other guy who tried and I liked the dude. I was not implying the DNC asked him to step down.

Jesus Christ yall are ready to jump on everything.

 

[B-Dubs]

I said RIP Malley because he was the only other guy who tried and I liked the dude. I was not implying the DNC asked him to step down.

O'Malley wasn't the one who died!

 

[TyrantII]

Its insane to me that such a big slice of the Democratic party now believes anything and everything said on Fox News as long as it pertains to Hillary Clinton.

They don't. It would be interesting to research, but I'd bet most of these people are first time low info voters or Green-Rainbow cross overs.

When Hillary wins the nomination after California's results, 95% of Dems will be lining up behind her. Even as the left-derp squad goes thermonuclear.

Maybe they can trot out the Obama as Hitler posters again.

 

[Armaros]

Biden did not step aside because of Bernie, let's be fucking real here.

Oh thanks for reminding me another transgression by the DNC, propping up Hillary and asking everyone else to step aside.

You don't think it's a problem that her only competition (RIP Malley) is from a senior socialist Jew from Vermont?

I said RIP Malley because he was the only other guy who tried and I liked the dude. I was not implying the DNC asked him to step down.

Jesus Christ yall are ready to jump on everything.

Biden's son died from brain cancer, thats why he didnt run. Not because the DNC sweeped him aside.

 

[Dangansona]

O'Malley wasn't the one who died!

Let me put this clearly.

Have you ever heard someone say RIP to someone who isn't actually dead? Like maybe when they drop out of a presidential race? I LIKED O'MALLEY. I WAS CONSIDERING VOTING FOR HIM AT THE TIME. I ASSUMED HE DROPPED OUT BECAUSE HE WASN'T GETTING THE VOTES.

In what Universe does this comment line mention O Malley.

Biden's son died from brain cancer, thats why he didnt run.

Ah you are talking about Biden's son. I thought you were talking about my comments about O'Malley(I thought yall were saying he had died which I had no idea about and I didn't have to time to look it up in these last 3 minutes of posts). I also never said that Biden didn't run because the DNC asked him not to. I believe that was someone else? But there should have been more candidates against Hillary who aren't just Biden.

Edit: and just for the record, my father was a local politician who died from pancreatic cancer. I would never suggest that anyone who stepped away for family reason related to cancer would ever be part of a conspiracy

 

[Box of Kittens]

Bernie hate-train is leaving soon. All aboard!

Why should he know the exact legal implications of one of his ideas? He is not a lawyer.

And more importantly, he's still right. The fact none of those criminals went to jail, and the fact that the 6 largest companies are equal to more than half of the GDP of the U.S., is a testament to how much of a joke our economy is. How the banks deal with getting broken up is their own problem.

If you're a United States Senator and you've been advocating something for years then you should have some idea of its ramifications.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Bernie hate-train is leaving soon. All aboard!

Why should he know the exact legal implications of one of his ideas? He is not a lawyer.

And more importantly, he's still right. The fact none of those criminals went to jail, and the fact that the 6 largest companies are equal to more than half of the GDP of the U.S., is a testament to how much of a joke our economy is. How the banks deal with getting broken up is their own problem.

A lawyer should be able to cite legislation, relevant section and relevant case law. That was not the standard by which Sanders failed.

This man, who has the audacity to make finance reform his central platform, was unable to articulate any substantive thought about the matter whatsoever. If this is the level of his expertise, he might as well just start telling us he can see Russia from Vermont

 

[ShironRedshift]

Bernie hate-train is leaving soon. All aboard!

Why should he know the exact legal implications of one of his ideas? He is not a lawyer.

And more importantly, he's still right. The fact none of those criminals went to jail, and the fact that the 6 largest companies are equal to more than half of the GDP of the U.S., is a testament to how much of a joke our economy is. How the banks deal with getting broken up is their own problem.

How exactly is he right when he can't cite what law they actually broke and under what statute they'd be prosecuted? That's the first thing you have to have clear to do that, and he doesn't even have that much? How is Bernie's inability to answer a simple question like that that he needs to be able to answer for his positions to make sense a "hate-train"? That's on him, and considering he's a candidate running for the position of the leader of the most wealthy and powerful nation on Earth, I wouldn't think holding him to even such a basic standard would be expecting too much, especially from his supporters, who should be expecting more of him than anyone else if anything.

 

[HariKari]

low info voters

There's that phrase again...

 

[Hindl]

A lawyer should be able to cite legislation, relevant section and relevant case law. That was not the standard by which Sanders failed.

This man, who has the audacity to make finance reform his central platform, was unable to articulate any substantive thought about the matter whatsoever. If this is the level of his expertise, he might as well just start telling us he can see Russia from Vermont

Well in response to Chris Matthews asking how would Bernie deal with putin he did say he dealt with a lot of people as mayor of Burlington...

 

[eBay Huckster]

i try to say "people who don't obsessively pore over economic papers/policy white papers" instead of "low-info voters" nowadays. it more accurately brings across what it is i'm trying to say - voters that aren't obsessive about these things, whether that means they just don't care about policy or if they casually read things

 

[noshten]

Answer the question.

I've already answered the question you just chose not to hear my answer. Media is more concerned with ratings and gave Trump free airtime all summer/autumn, they enjoyed the circus and were quite happy to tout how many millions had turned in to watch a bunch of people flinging shit at each other.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...and-cnn-give-trump-less-air-time-jim-geraghty
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/why-the-hell-is-msnbc-airing-live-donald-trump-rallies/
http://spectator.org/articles/64737/ratings-trump-respect-and-dignity-nbc

I called it a long time ago
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=183538184&postcount=12182

They wanted a circus for ratings now they got to live with enabling a Trump or Cruz or Trump/Cruz as a real possibility this election.

 

[TyrantII]

There's that phrase again...

What's wrong with it? Most first time, young voters are low info. I was at first.

 

[jtb]

Politicians are lawmakers. To argue that a politician shouldn't understand the laws that they're voting on or how proposals will influence (or be influenced by) existing legislation is beyond absurd, it's beyond non-sensical -- it's just fucking idiotic.

 

[rjinaz]

Oh thanks for reminding me another transgression by the DNC, propping up Hillary and asking everyone else to step aside.

You don't think it's a problem that her only competition (RIP Malley) is from a senior socialist Jew from Vermont?

He seems to be holding hos own all things considered. Pretty sure the popular opinion just 3 months ago was that he'd win just a few states at his 25%. Not that it's going to be enough in the end but what did you want?

 

[hawk2025]

I've already answered the question you just chose not to hear my answer. Media is more concerned with ratings and gave Trump free airtime all summer/autumn, they enjoyed the circus and were quite happy to tout how many millions had turned in to watch a bunch of people flinging shit at each other.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...and-cnn-give-trump-less-air-time-jim-geraghty
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/why-the-hell-is-msnbc-airing-live-donald-trump-rallies/
http://spectator.org/articles/64737/ratings-trump-respect-and-dignity-nbc

I called it a long time ago
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=183538184&postcount=12182

They wanted a circus for ratings now they got to live with enabling a Trump or Cruz or Trump/Cruz as a real possibility this election.

But your reply to me implied media bias, not chasing ratings, to the point of writing up a full paragraph on how super interesting Sanders' path is. If you are claiming they are simply chasing ratings, there's no contest there. I wonder why you even challenged my post in the first place, then. That's exactly what I said.

 

[Kin5290]

i try to say "people who don't obsessively pore over economic papers/policy white papers" instead of "low-info voters" nowadays. it more accurately brings across what it is i'm trying to say - voters that aren't obsessive about these things

There's a hell of a difference between "total policy wonk" and "lacks any understanding of how politics/the real world works and/or the historical context", though.

And there's a lack of knowledge, and there's writing off experts and people in-the-know as being corrupt and bought and paid for, which Bernie supporters are definitely doing in spades.

 

[The Lamp]

And? I mean, I agree that the thread title isn't the best and should probably be changed (especially so people can stop using it as an excuse to avoid the content of the interview itself on a more critical level and coming in here just for more one-liners like this, but that's something that should be being done in PMs with them instead of in the thread itself like this anyway), but what of the rest of the interview? That's hardly the worst part. Using the thread title to dismiss the entire content of the interview out of hand and why people are concerned by Sanders' answers and why they find them lacking is even more dishonest and disingenuous.

You sure extrapolated a lot out of me pointing something out.

Sure Sanders hasn't studied some legal implications of things. Yes, Sanders thinks the fossil fuel industry needs to change despite the harm to jobs because ultimately a livable planet > some jobs in his mind.

But he's honest about it, and people like that, because for everything you're not an expert in, you get experts to advise you.

 

[eBay Huckster]

There's a hell of a difference between "total policy wonk" and "lacks any understanding of how politics/the real world works and/or the historical context", though.

that's true, but it's only after i make that initial distinction that i break down the spectrum even further, into "casual policy wonk", "unintentionally ignorant of policy", and "doubles down on their positions even if they're contradicted by all empirical evidence on the basis that the empirical evidence is WWE-biased"

the first two, you can convince, you can agree with, you can concede points to

the third can stay home for all i give a shit

 

[noshten]

But your reply to me implied media bias, not chasing ratings, to the point of writing up a full paragraph on how super interesting Sanders' path is. If you are claiming they are simply chasing ratings, there's no contest there. I wonder why you even challenged my post in the first place, then. That's exactly what I said.

I didn't challenge that part of your post I said that the Donald Trump story and what you outlined isn't anything particularly interesting. A media personality manipulating the media into giving him money in the form of free airtime. It was the most obvious thing to happen this election

 

[Matt]

Oh thanks for reminding me another transgression by the DNC, propping up Hillary and asking everyone else to step aside.

Another ridiculous, baseless attack on the DNC.

They don't do the things you think they do, nor do they have the power to.

 

[Dangansona]

Another ridiculous, baseless attack on the DNC.

They don't do the things you think they do, nor do they have the power to.

Fair enough. I mean I suspect they encouraged potential candidates not to run because they want Hillary to be the candidate and the potentials agreed, which is something I think Debbie could do even if it's not within her right to (you know that better than I). I was never implying they had the power to prevent anyone from running.

And I meant to respond to your post before but at that point I was doing work. I appreciated your response as someone who has worked with them.

 

[blackw0lf]

In defense of Sanders on breaking up the big banks

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/0...-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?&_r=0

 

[Matt]

Fair enough. I mean I suspect they encouraged potential candidates not to run because they want Hillary to be the candidate and the potentials agreed, which is something I think Debbie could do even if it's not within her right to (you know that better than I). I was never implying they had the power to prevent anyone from running.

And I meant to respond to your post before but at that point I was doing work. I appreciated your response as someone who has worked with them.

Well, thank you for saying that.

However, on your first point, I think it's wrong to attack the organization for things you suspect they do without any knowledge. But to go further, who is "they"? If you mean the DNC operations and it's employees (those that do all of the work for the Democratic Party), no, they don't do that. Not at all. If you mean MEMBERS of the DNC, then they are all allowed to have opinions, and express those opinions as citizens.

But in no way is "the DNC" doing anything. That's like saying the US Senate has pushed for Hillary.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

With all this media bias stuff, I was checking the weather on my local news and they had a story on their website about how there's some kind of super delegate crisis because Bernie might take New York (my state) or some nonsense like that. Hyping up a horse race that isn't there, with no evidence it's there, and with no logical reason why it would be there.

If anything, the media is being too optimistic with his chances

 

[eBay Huckster]

In defense of Sanders on breaking up the big banks

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/0...-something-about-breaking-up-banks.html?&_r=0

Those are actually fairly reasonable readings of those statements - speaking personally, I didn't consider at first that he could've been talking about mechanisms under S.1206 (and it definitely tracks with what Kashkari in particular has been saying).

In other words, I basically fixated on the "or".

I'm still not quite satisfied with this policy plank, but it's not the unmitigated disaster I thought it was.

 

[El Odio]

With all this media bias stuff, I was checking the weather on my local news and they had a story on their website about how there's some kind of super delegate crisis because Bernie might take New York or some nonsense like that. Hyping up a horse race that isn't there, with no evidence it's there, and with no logical reason why it would be there.

If anything, the media is being too optimistic with his chances

Until they start reporting on the math that proves he doesn't have more than a 0.1% chance of winning they'll always be too optimistic.

 

[Dangansona]

Well, thank you for saying that.

However, on your first point, I think it's wrong to attack the organization for things you suspect they do without any knowledge. But to go further, who is "they"? If you mean the DNC operations and it's employees (those that do all of the work for the Democratic Party), no, they don't do that. Not at all. If you mean MEMBERS of the DNC, then they are all allowed to have opinions, and express those opinions as citizens.

But in no way is "the DNC" doing anything. That's like saying the US Senate has pushed for Hillary.

"They" would equal leaders of the DNC, not all of it's employees or members. I just don't think it is unreasonable to wonder why there has been so little competition on the Democratic side when the whole point of the primaries is to find out through the people's vote who has the best chance in the general election. And not that it means much, but I am not the first person to speculate on this. And it isn't a legal issue, its an issue of whether this is a fair thing for the DNC to do coming from a registered democrat.

 

[The Albatross]

It's only a matter of time before two of these guys fuse and become the 5th branch (4th is reserved for the NRA lol) of the US government.

Well, the Federal Reserve -- the largest bank in the world -- already exists and it holds approximately 2-3 times the assets as the largest private bank in the US (JP Morgan Chase).

 

[Piecake]

They would equal leaders of the DNC, not all of it's employees or members. I just don't think it is unreasonable to wonder why there has been so little competition on the Democratic side when the whole point of the primaries is to find out through the people's vote who has the best chance in the general election. And not that it means much, but I am not the first person to speculate on this. And it isn't a legal issue, its an issue of whether this is a fair thing for the DNC to do coming from a registered democrat.

It seems pretty obvious to me. Other Candidates did not want to lose a primary to Hilary Clinton because it seemed like she was the obvious front-runner and winner and they didn't have confidence to beat her. The didn't want to tarnish their political career or legacy.

There is no reason to delve into conspiracy theories when you can explain just by putting yourself into the shoes of potential political candidates and basically do a cost-benefit analysis of them running, their motivations, and their feelings, etc.

 

[Matt]

They would equal leaders of the DNC, not all of it's employees or members. I just don't think it is unreasonable to wonder why there has been so little competition on the Democratic side when the whole point of the primaries is to find out through the people's vote who has the best chance in the general election. And not that it means much, but I am not the first person to speculate on this. And it isn't a legal issue, its an issue of whether this is a fair thing for the DNC to do coming from a registered democrat.

What's a "leader" of the DNC? I don't think you understand how the DNC is set up. There is a chairman, DWS, who is ultimately responsible for the operation of the DNC, though that is really done by the COO and other employed positions. Since there is a Democratic President now, she's not even the leader of the party. Members vote on the big issues of the party at the Conventions.

Why weren't there more people running in the Democratic Primary? Because politicians like to win, and Hillary was viewed as unbeatable. Also a lot of people owe a lot to, or simply feel a lot for the Clintons, so it was often viewed as politeness. It's her turn.

 

[Dangansona]

What's a "leader" of the DNC? I don't think you understand how the DNC is set up. There is a chairman, DWS, who is ultimately responsible for the operation of the DNC, though that is really done by the COO and other employed positions. Since there is a Democratic President now, she's not even the leader of the party. Members vote on the big issues of the party at the Conventions.

Why weren't there more people running in the Democratic Primary? Because politicians like to win, and Hillary was viewed as unbeatable. Also a lot of people owe a lot to, or simply feel a lot for the Clintons, so it was often viewed as politeness. It's her turn.

I won't pretend to know the full structure of the DNC. I doubt many people in here do. But I know about DWS, whose actions have allowed this "conspiracy theory" (I don't think its that big of a stretch to earn that title) to exist. She's clearly a Hillary supporter just like the majority of established Democrats are (that does not come with the bitterness that usually accompanies "established"). So when I referred to the leaders, I was talking about whichever positions report to Debbie. Because I don't know what the positions would be, I used vague labels.

 

[Matt]

I won't pretend to know the full structure of the DNC. I doubt many people in here do. But I know about DWS, whose actions have allowed this "conspiracy theory" (I don't think its that big of a stretch to earn that title) to exist. She's clearly a Hillary supporter just like the majority of established Democrats are (that does not come with the bitterness that usually accompanies "established"). So when I referred to the leaders, I was talking about whichever positions report to Debbie. Because I don't know what the positions would be, I used vague labels.

First of all, you don't "know about DWS." I know about DWS. She's a nice lady in person. What you know is hearsay and guess work.

Secondly, the only people who "report" to her are the employees of the DNC.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Lol alright.



Ah yes, half of those being from one publication and other household names like the Daily Intelligencer. But no one said they are propping him up. They are just putting him on blast 24/7.

Don't misquote. What I said applies to your reply to that image. Bad press is bad; that platitude about "No such thing as bad press" is garbage, as I just showed you. And as others have pointed out, the news reports on news. Trump's inflammatory remarks are news. Bernie isn't.

 

[Dangansona]

First of all, you don't "know about DWS." I know about DWS. She's a nice lady in person. What you know is hearsay and guess work.

Secondly, the only people who "report" to her are the employees of the DNC.

1) Her conflicts of interest don't bother you or the comments she has made about Bernie in TV interviews?

2) Right, so are you saying in the DNC there is just Debbie and every other employee? No tiers in-between? Not that this really matters.

Don't misquote. What I said applies to your reply to that image. Bad press is bad; that platitude about "No such thing as bad press" is garbage, as I just showed you. And as others have pointed out, the news reports on news. Trump's inflammatory remarks are news. Bernie isn't.

Not sure how I misquoted you. You basically said how the odds are completely against him and he is at this point in the race as relevant as Jill Stein.

 

[Matt]

1) Her conflicts of interest don't bother you or the comments she has made about Bernie in TV interviews?

2) Right, so are you saying in the DNC there is just Debbie and every other employee? No tiers in-between? Not that this really matters.

1) List them, and I'll tell you if they were inappropriate or how I feel about them. But nothing that DWS might say in an interview is representative of anything the DNC is doing against Sanders.

2) Basically, yes. There are other positions that come in to play for conventions, but otherwise the DNC is essentially manned and run by employees.